Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 02:35am PT
|
There it is, in a mere three paragraphs, Jan emasculates MB1!
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... BAD word choice, there, HFCS!
Actually, all Jan did was state what I already think about anthropology. It has nothing whatsoever to say about morality! It speaks only about observed behavior. HFCS, are you really so simple-minded that you think those two are just the same thing??? And you haven't even attempted to answer the question about what scientific experiments could possibly provide truth conditions for ethical claims.
"We're wired..."? PUNT! Again, that's nothing to say about morality. If we're wired to be "moral," then you need to go ALL the way and just embrace the hard determinism that follows from your scientism.
But then you've got a serious problem, because an undeniable meta-ethical principle is: ought implies can. In other words, you cannot be morally bound to do something that is impossible in principle for you to do, and you cannot be morally precluded from doing something that is impossible in principle for you to avoid.
But a deterministic world view implies that whatever you did, you could have done no other thing. Whatever you did not do, you could not have done. Your behaviors are fixed and determined. "Freedom" is an illusion. Thus, "morality" IS nothing more than descriptions of what in fact happened. And you can have no actual MORAL responsibility, because you did not really ACT. Instead, all of your "actions" were nothing more than EVENTS in the moving, interacting sub-atomic particles that comprise "reality".
At least have the guts to bite the bullet your scientism offers you.
And, Paul, thank you. The vast majority of ethicists are deontologists, with a much smaller number being consequentialists (specifically some flavor of utilitarian). Consequentialists spend their entire lives defending their various theories from the devastating attacks of deontologists, as all forms of consequentialism lead to entirely unacceptable "moral answers" to various thought experiments. For example, a doctor is required to butcher an entirely healthy young man in order to distribute his organs to five other dying people.
Deontology is "duty-based" ethics, which means that the ethical principles trump individual preference, circumstances, projected consequences, etc. Thus, deontological ethics is a form of absolutism.
Deontology was invented by Kant, and there is much online about Kantian ethics (although, unfortunately, often accuracy about the subtleties is lacking).
In brief, Kant argued that ethical principles could be derived directly from rational principles, particularly the law of non-contradiction. So, for example, stealing is wrong because when stealing is universalized (everybody steals all the time), stealing undermines itself in concept. "Stealing" conceptually depends upon the notion of private property. But if everybody is stealing everything all the time, then the concept of private property evaporates, meaning that universalized stealing is a contradiction in terms.
The principle of universalization derives directly from a conceptual analysis of moral oughtness itself, although I can't take the space to show that analysis here. So, according to Kant, we can know that stealing is wrong because it violates the underlying rationality of moral oughtness itself.
That was a ridiculously superficial overview of Kantian ethics, but most ethicists hold to some variation of that sort of model.
However, a profound resurgence in so-called "divine command ethics" has emerged among ethicists, as all other approaches to ethics, including Kant's, have been seen to have fundamental internal inconsistencies. Thus, many ethicists today believe that the two options are some form of divine-command ethics or ethical skepticism. The only known downside to divine-command ethics is that they imply a God that issues commands that become binding oughts due to His (its?) right to command. This approach to ethics also enjoys the intuitive appeal that we already understand the notion that a legitimate commander (such as in the military) can produce genuine oughts just in virtue of commanding.
Again, this was an incredibly superficial overview, but I have just briefly summarized thousands of pages of ethical literature.
You can always be an ethical skeptic. But what contemporary ethical study disallows is the option to be an informed, educated ethicist and maintain the anthropological conflation or the egoism/relativism that the average person believes.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 03:04am PT
|
Science gave us (not to mention Pakistan and soon Iran) the ability to develop an H bomb - In terms of natural facts, physical facts. But could it ever tell us we SHOULD drop the H bomb - in terms of moral facts?
interesting. read about the manhattan project and you will find all manner of scientists questioning morality while developing the BOMB. i believe that some of the spies that deliveerd the technology to USSR were even morally motivated.
dropping some? it could only be done to preserve a way of life or self protection. and based upon OUR attack on iraq makes this scary as hell.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 03:21am PT
|
Philosophy has been looking at these questions for centuries. It matters little that scientific inquiry has dramatically advanced over the last century. The main thing is the idea of applying scientific method to human behavior in the the attempt to arrive at an objective "right" way to live and act relative to certain basic suppositions.
If you want to get down to brass tacks here, look into ethics and "rule conseqentialism," et al. The great fly in the ointment is the playing field is rarely black and white, so criteria is hard to derive from such a gray medium as out actual lived experience. Most wise folks have abandoned the idea that fact and figures will change behavior, just as few understand the basic, counterintuitive concepts ("Spiritual Paradox") that "knowledge availed us nothing," (in terms of changed behavior), and that "we cannot get here from there."
This is not easy material.
JL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 11:21am PT
|
"We're wired..."? PUNT! Again, that's nothing to say about morality. If we're wired to be "moral," then you need to go ALL the way and just embrace the hard determinism that follows from your scientism.
To remind you, we discussed all this last year. Contrary to popular (ol' time religious) belief, I believe (1) life derives from matter (it doesn't just work through it, but is independent of it); (2) we live in a mechanistic universe "obedient to" cause n effect (which does not negate ability, power, (certain forms of) freedom).
What to notice: MB1 has not defined for purpose of this discussion either (a) morality or (b) scientism or (c) determinism. All are vague, indefinite terms.
Take determinism. Which determinism? Causal determinism (re: causality) or mental determinism (re: prediction). Big difference, big. It's an unnecessary problematic word. (BTW, how often do philosophers even BOTHER to distinguish them in discourse? how ironic considering their attn to the parsing of words, definitions, manner of speaking and -ism vocabulary and usage; verily, I almost bust up from the irony.) Thinkers of the "New Wave" avoid this problematic word steeped in centuries of old philosophical b.s., baggage. I decided 20 years ago, it wasn't necessary.
Till you try to communicate more in line with modern engineering standards, let loose of that centuries-old crap, we won't have any successful communications.
I'm not the only one who feels he's wasted plenty enough time already years ago working through the esoteric communications style of academic philosophy. From the link above:
"It reminds me of the philosopher who, when told by a reader that she couldn’t understand anything in his new book, responded with a grateful thanks and a proud smile!"
Here's what increasing numbers of people believe, myself included (that's pertinent to this thread): (a) powers and freedoms exist even in a fully mechanistic universe; (b) much of our morality derives from our (species and individual) makeup, this in turn can be influenced (informed) by our experience, education; (c) it's time we had new beliefs, belief systems, codified, institutionalized, etc based on these concepts and others derived from a modern understanding of things - in part to serve as counterpoint to ol'time religious systems that rely on, promote and maintain supernaturalist belief. -The latter of which is unadulterated bunk - when passed to children as reality as opposed to mere myth or story.
The good news of course: some are already working on it.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 11:35am PT
|
All this discussion reminds me of how guys like HFCS are "aiming" towards some kind of artificial watered down authority due to a real poor fund of knowledge of how real authority actually exists and works.
All these stupid watered down versions are always destroyed by the likes of the "Clint Eastwoods" type ....
hehe
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 12:01pm PT
|
But a deterministic world view implies that whatever you did, you could have done no other thing. Whatever you did not do, you could not have done. Your behaviors are fixed and determined. "Freedom" is an illusion. Thus, "morality" IS nothing more than descriptions of what in fact happened. And you can have no actual MORAL responsibility, because you did not really ACT. Instead, all of your "actions" were nothing more than EVENTS in the moving, interacting sub-atomic particles that comprise "reality".
Classic example of old-school philosophical b.s. -Useless. -Useless as all the Abrahamic schools of theology and their branches (demonology to soteriology). A waste of time.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 12:12pm PT
|
"At least have the guts to bite the bullet your scientism offers you."
If by "scientism" you only mean, advocacy for, or belief in, a method, or methods, of science (and engineering) - and nothing more, in particular nothing perjorative in the way retro philosophers to theologians use it in their circles - or should I say, their "group gropings" - then, yeah, I bit the bullet a long time ago. Proudly. I consider this an achievement.
.....
It's a mechanistic universe. (Bite the bullet.) There is no ghost in the machine. (Bite the bullet.) Evil existed as part of the evolutionary process among living things on earth long before humanity's arrival. (Bite the bullet.) Dump the "Abrahamic indulgences" e.g., eternal life, etc.. (Bite the bullet.) Attitude counts. "Attitude is everything." In and out of climbing. Whether it is climbing or living.
Trust. Have faith. Have hope. The fact that "human beings are a marvelous species" -
http://www.wimp.com/peopleawesome/
-will see them through the difficult times. In the future. Just as it has in the past.
Be brave. Bite the bullet.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 12:22pm PT
|
long before humanity's arrival.
Just see ..
And he was around back then to "know".
And this kind of rascalism is going on in the name of "Science" ....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 12:25pm PT
|
Werner, you might've missed it:
http://www.wimp.com/peopleawesome/
"Attitude is everything." C'mon, I know you remember that.
.....
this kind of rascalism is going on in the name of "Science"
It IS the science. Read it. It's called "science education." And yeah, you can actually use it as foundation - and build a "practice" of living on it. Try it.
"Attitude is everything."
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 12:27pm PT
|
HFCS You are a very weak man ....
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 12:27pm PT
|
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
 Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," published in Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85 |
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 01:16pm PT
|
Yeah, if only more Americans would read Dawkins, and incorporate its wisdom, American culture wouldn't be losing so much ground every week to the Europeans and Asians. Alas.
It is almost AS IF nowadays American culture prides itself on its lack of science education.
"HFCS You are a very weak man..."
C'mon, Werner, let's not go there. Again. I thought supertopo turned a new leaf and was now trying to work a move A STEP ABOVE American politics in civil discourse.
.....
"If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. "
Now THAT is an example of a natural dynamic set against us, set against all living things. It is reality. How are we choosing to respond to this reality?
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 02:31pm PT
|
Thanks to MB1 for his explanation. I, at least, appreciate the effort. I will follow up with some of the leads that you have provided. Though I suspect that I am an ethical skeptic or something. Maybe if I get around to stating some of my views you can tell me which category I fit into.
I tend to not think of things in terms of morality or ethics, right or wrong, but perhaps some beliefs and patterns are so ingrained that I don't question them at all.
HFCS, I tend to be very sympathetic to your ideas and efforts. However I get tired of your carping on the Abrahamic God, as you put it. I suspect there are many christians with whom you would see almost eye to eye. But it seems like you are asserting that this one factor, belief in the Christian, Jewish, Muslim God is primarily to blame for the level of superstition and ignorance in our society. I suspect this is a perceptual illusion. Since you reject these beliefs, it is easy for you to see their failings. However, it is difficult for you to see your own superstitions or other superstitions that don't fall in the areas that you pay attention to.
Seems to me that society is saturated with various superstitions and that most are completely independent of religion. I don't think eliminating Christianity, Judaism, and Islam would have much effect on the level of superstition in society. Though I don't think it would have much effect on the level of morality either, so that shows what a nutcase I am.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 02:36pm PT
|
I get tired of your carping on the Abrahamic God...
Alright. Enough then.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 02:42pm PT
|
Till I read this:
"However, it is difficult for you to see your own superstitions or other superstitions..."
Any examples?
.....
I'll put it to you: Is not the Abrahamic religion in all three forms the #1 obstacle to science education? You just happen to be addressing a climber here who sees science education as a superb FOUNDATION for the practice of living and has taken on the right if not the duty to defend it as such.
I'll remind you there might be - no, there ARE - wider goals here. We live in a democracy that's losing ground everyday on the world stage. We live in a democracy in which anyone whose passion or profession is science or science education, who supports the Scientific Story, cannot be elected to public office unless he lies about such issues as believing in God, eternal life, basis of evil, etc.. Even until arguably just NOW in the zeitgeist, he would've had to lie about any belief in evolution, too. Now I happen to think that's a pretty big deal.
Yeah, so there it is, Paul.
.....
"Repetition is the mother of skill." Religious people exploit this powerful dynamic in prayer. Don't they? How about the number of times over the course of my life I got "tired" of Abrahamic supernaturalists in my own culture or community chanting the Lord's Prayer or chanting John 3:16 or chanting The Ten Commandments. That's all pretty tiresome and tedious, too.
.....
"I suspect there are many christians with whom you would see almost eye to eye."
In reference to what? (1) the beauty of Mithril Dihedral, perhaps; (2) God Jesus, not. (3) Man's need of forgiveness as a result of the Fall, not. (3) Jehovah anything like the hypothetical Diacrates, not. (4) eternal life, not. (5) the ineptness of Sarah Palin, maybe.
....
Paul, it seems you like to "stir the pot" a bit yourself:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/649201/I-like-looking-at-your-body
-Not an uninteresting issue by the way.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 07:37pm PT
|
BTW, how often do philosophers even BOTHER to distinguish them in discourse?
Have you read a SINGLE contemporary philosophical article on the subject? ONE? You know literally nothing of modern to contemporary philosophy, yet you dismiss it (in utter ignorance) at every turn. Now, don't hop on and Google some articles, because I've certainly read them, and I'll call your bluff by asking you comprehension questions about them! Just admit that you are intentionally ignorant, yet justify your ignorance by being sweepingly dismissive.
OF COURSE we can draw such distinctions. However, in this discussion there is no distinction in play. Here's why...
In this discussion you try to distinguish between causal determinism and "mental determinism," yet in the same breath you admit to a mechanistic, material universe that is causally determined. Then you proudly stand by your "no ghost in the machine" line, which necessarily makes you a materialist about mind. Put these together, as I already knew you would, and you have exactly ZERO distinction between causal and mental determinism. "Mind" just is causally-determined matter; it is just another phenomenon to be examined and explained by science. And it is so approachable by the scientific method exactly because the mind is causally determined. So, don't accuse me of neglecting a distinction that I happen to know is a meaningless distinction to you.
You can SAY words like "freedom," but your world view has exactly ZERO room or explanation for it. YOUR "freedom" is at most a feeling, an illusion. And it does NOT ground moral responsibility.
Since you seem to dislike my drawing the implications of the "ought implies can" principle, perhaps you'd like to explain to us all how a person can be morally responsible for an event over which he/she has no choice.
On your world view there can be NO principled difference between an event like a volcano erupting, killing thousands, and an event like people flying an airliner into the World Trade Center towers, killing thousands. BOTH are mere events. BOTH are causally determined. BOTH are just machinations of matter and very complex causal chains resulting in EVENTS that we might not happen to LIKE, but about which "morality" does not apply. You can no more call the 9/11 terrorists "evil" than you can call an erupting volcano "evil". BOTH are just happenings, just purely material/causal events.
You will avoid by claiming some vague, undefined, and impossible "freedom" in the face of such radical causal determinism. But then there is nothing more to say to you, because then you are simply denying the necessary implications of your materialism and causal determinism.
Oh, and don't try to appeal to something like the randomness of "quantum events" as the basis for "freedom." It's been tried and summarily dismissed. First of all, the vast majority of physicists do not believe that causality is actually suspended in the case of apparent quantum randomness. The randomness is merely apparent and reveals an epistemic limitation of US rather than a genuine question about the causally determined nature of sub-atomic events.
Oh, and even if there WERE genuine randomness at the quantum level, that still doesn't get you "freedom" or moral responsibility. Random, supposedly uncaused, events do not get you a connected STREAM of consciousness over which you can be supposedly responsible.
But you want to stick with the language of science and engineering, because, apparently I'm just babbling now. So, I can't wait... TELL oh do TELL how this supposed "freedom" works, and TELL us in the language of science and engineering.
Oh, btw, the discussion we're having right now... it IT a scientific discussion? I mean, what experiments and observations are the truth conditions for the INFERENCES and claims that you make?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 07:51pm PT
|
If by "scientism" you only mean, advocacy for, or belief in, a method, or methods, of science (and engineering) - and nothing more, in particular nothing perjorative in the way retro philosophers to theologians use it in their circles - or should I say, their "group gropings" - then, yeah, I bit the bullet a long time ago. Proudly. I consider this an achievement.
.....
It's a mechanistic universe. (Bite the bullet.) There is no ghost in the machine. (Bite the bullet.) Evil existed as part of the evolutionary process among living things on earth long before humanity's arrival. (Bite the bullet.) Dump the "Abrahamic indulgences" e.g., eternal life, etc.. (Bite the bullet.) Attitude counts. "Attitude is everything." In and out of climbing. Whether it is climbing or living
Yup, exactly what I mean by "scientism". And why don't you dump the "abrahamic" references in this discussion. They are purely pejorative, and obvious red herrings. I haven't mentioned anything about religion in any aspect of this discussion other than to note that many, many ethicists are now acknowledging that divine command theory at least gives a cogent, consistent, non-nutty account of objectivist ethics. There is no mention of an "abrahamic God" in that statement, as the attributes of this "divine commander" could be wildly different from those of the "abrahamic God," and no ethicist is presuming anything "abrahamic" is the discussion (of course, a fact about you will also be ignorant, being ignorant of the entire literature).
You are one of the first people I have ever encountered in my life that takes PRIDE in such sweeping ignorance! If you think it flies, then enjoy your narrow-minded, deluded life. But your ignorance is SHOWING!
If you think that scientism is the ONLY discourse that matters, then your radical narrow-mindedness is also showing. If philosophy is so dead, then quit using it with every posting! Do NOTHING but trot out experimental data... RAW... utterly uninterpreted! Oh, and use ONLY the language of mathematics to do that! Do NOT use inferences of ANY kind, because HOW you use inferences is the province of philosophy! So, you may not use natural languages or inferences of ANY kind, because philosophy NOT science is the discipline that studies and evaluates those. So, tell us EVERYTHING you opine in ONLY the language of mathematics and employing ONLY raw experimental data! THEN I'll believe that you actually LIVE as you TALK!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 08:26pm PT
|
There you go again. De ja vous: A year ago. Have you read a SINGLE contemporary philosophical article on the subject? ONE? You know literally nothing of modern to contemporary philosophy
You want me to post my three A grades in "contemporary" regular academic philosophy from the 80s, I can do that. I'll also remind you Sam Harris is a philosopher, so is Dan Dennett, arguably the country's most known and respected philosopher not only for his ability to communicate but known for his bent toward science and engineering. I'll also remind you your opening caustic sorties from a year ago condemned him, Sagan, Dawkins and others. -Which drew my attn. And then within just a couple of posts your caustic condescension was everywhere - not only calling me an idiot but the others, too, and everybody. We could dredge those posts up, too, if you like.
So blast away with your pompousness. I sleep at night knowing I'm in good company. Let me ask you, could you read even one chapter of Sagan's Cosmos or Demon Haunted World while keeping your mouth shut?
Time for dinner...
P.S. I'll look over the rest of your diatribes AFTER Dinner to see if they allude to anything modern that doesn't refer to dusty old philosophers from the 18th century.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 08:34pm PT
|
Oh, I'll be clearer about something unrelated to MB1: INDUBITABLY, just as science education makes for a superb FOUNDATION for any and all engineering disciplines (as shown by many decades of experience now), so too, my central assertion is... by extension, by extrapolation, on the same grounds... science education makes - or would make - for a superb FOUNDATION for the "practice" of living. That's right, the "practice" of living (a currently nameless discipline waiting to be named) apart from religions that turn on bronze age stupidities, certainly apart from academic philosophies that bring with them so much baggage from the 16th to 19th centuries. That's the central assertion I made a year ago, I make it still. -If it needed clarifing at all.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 19, 2010 - 08:56pm PT
|
Heck, I'm already done with dinner.
Alright MB1, I'll go there with you, see if you can FOCUS on just one subject: determinism. A FAVORITE of academic philosophy. Keep it relatively short and we'll go back n forth here. I'm interested in freedom. Last summer I read Dennett's Freedom Evolves. (Yep, he's a philosopher, too.) I also read Thomas Clark's Encountering Naturalism. Both piqued my interest (for about the tenth time) regarding free will. So I'll put it to you: What is determinism's relationship / significance to so-called "free will." If you write clearly, I'll TRY to keep up. -In the hope we can reach any common ground.
....
In fact, a short cut to my "philosophy" of life, my belief system is easily had through Thomas Clark. We pretty much "channel" each other.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/tom_clark_encountering_naturalism
http://naturalism.org/
http://www.amazon.com/Encountering-Naturalism-Worldview-Its-Uses/dp/0979111102
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1022039654662139670#
So as I said earlier, I feel good as I'm in good company. There is a groundswell of "good company" out there. Not growing as fast as our "celebrity nation" but growing very fast nonetheless.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!